I'm not voting for Bush

Either he is a liar, incompetent or both. I don’t think he is an evil man. I do believe he feels like he is doing the right thing. However, for my country and for myself, he is doing the wrong thing. A vote for Kerry is a vote for uncertainty. But a vote for Bush is a vote for more of the same. And I don’t like Bush or his cronies.

So… To sum it up, Bush isn’t evil, he just does evil things. And I think Kerry might be so so as a president. But I don’t think he will do evil things.

That’s the reason behind my voting decision.

And I consider myself conservative.

And how is Kerry different? Saw the same evidence, made the same conclusion…

I suppose you’re voting for Nader? Good on you! We need more people that are unafraid of the bullies that will try to scare you into voting for their dude.

Where’s the evidence?

A vote for Nader is a wasted vote. Yeah, I know that I am a coward for not voting for him. But he has no chance of winnning. And I want Bush out.

You know for certain that Kerry saw the same intelligence reports that Bush did? That U.S. Senators are privy to all of the information the President is?

That’s pretty much how I see it. It’s more or less the rather pathetic circumstance of wishing that someone else would fart to cover the old one. Politicians are lucky that every election cycle they get a whole new slew of fresh faces, turning eighteen, to shit on while the ones who’ve finally figured it out are dying.

It sucks. Kerry does absolutely zilch for me. But I would rather go with an unknown than sell my my country out to Bushco again.

Let’s get serious here for just a moment. This is the United States. It is not the French Republic. We are not inclined to be swept off our feet by a Man On A Horse and we ought not to be looking for one. We are not selecting the Homecoming King and the Sweetheart of Delta Chi. We are looking to select the person who will head the executive branch of the national government and be the originator of federal policy. Never in our history have we had a man going for that office for the first time for whom there was anything approaching universal enthusiasm, with the exception of George Washington and US Grant, both of whom were as close to being a Man On A Horse as we have ever come.

A non-encumbant cantidate for the Presidency is always an unknown to one extent or another, simply because having no track record as president it is difficult to know just how well he will handle the job and how he will handle challenges that neither he nor the electorate can predict. Who, for instance, would have predicted during the 2000 presidential campaign that the great challenge of George Bush’s administration would be dealing with aircraft crashed into public buildings. Who would have predicted during the 2000 campaign that the candidate who decried “nation building” would within 18 months of taking office would be engaged in a shooting war in the Middle East and major nation building efforts in that volatile area? Who would have predicted that as President George Bush would actively seek war with Iraq? The issues of the 2000 campaign had precious little to do with the things the candidates talked about in the campaign.

What we need is not a Homecoming King. What we need is a critical thinker who understands how the country works, how the world works, what the traditions are that make this country what it is and aspires to be. We need a President who can draw critical distinctions and articulate them to the public.

It is not enough to say that one candidate or another is not exciting. It is not enough to say that one candidate or another’s response to future circumstances is unknown. It is enough, however, to say that on one hand we have a candidate whose response to past crises is a wrong and self defeating and on the other hand an inexperienced candidate who is a critical thinker with national legislative and international political experience and who can make critical distinctions. In that situation the choice between the devil you know and the devil you don’t know seems to me to be pretty obvious. Some times you fire an incompetent employee without knowing that the replacement will be any better just because you are not prepared to put up with the incompetent any longer. You do not continue to pursue bad policy because it is established policy once it is shown to be bad.

Do I expect to become the Queen of May if Senator Kerry is elected? Of course not. But I do expect to be rid of an Administration that, in my judgment, has pursued bad policy in favor of an Administration that is much more likely to avoid the mistakes of the present Administration and to do a much more rational job of dealing with the challenges of the unknown future.

Hear, hear!

The election is about choosing the best man for the job of President of the United States. It is not about picking a drinking buddy, a good chum, or the next celebrity to grace us from the boxes of Wheaties. It’s about leadership, wisdom, and skillful decision-making.

George W. Bush has shown none of those traits. He is unarguably a chummy speaker, and would make a nice drinking buddy, but that hardly makes up for the (proven) fact that he’s dumb as a fence post and thinks leadership is bullying people into doing what he wants.

Kerry might have the charisma of dry paint and a chin to put Jay Leno to shame, but all the evidence to date also shows him to be well-read, courageous, and a careful decision-maker – traits our nation desperately needs in November, if not sooner.
And heck, after the election, Fox can sign up Bush to be the host of a new talk show, where he can spin his gosh-darn charm all night long. As long as we keep him away from the important tasks, that’s fine with me.

Well put Spavined Gelding. People are looking for friggin’ Mel Gibson as William Wallace to inspire them.

Just vote for the guy who’s views more closely match your’s. Thats what REALLY matters. There should be no more emotion in choosing a president than in choosing an insurance agent.

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

  • Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

By God, yes! First man to paint his face blue, wear a dress, and then bend over and show me his naked, hairy butt…he gets my vote!
If neither man does so, then Kerry. Can’t say I’m not open-minded.

It sounds to me like Kerry was expressing an opinion. How can an opinion be a lie? And/or how does it demonstrate incompetence?

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”

  • Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

This one cannot be mistaken as opinion.

Once, however, a policy objective is determined one can be a little creative about the means to achieve that objective. One can state an alternative without thinking that there are no other alternatives. To suggest that the threat of or actual use of armed forces was an option in 1998 means that there was no viable option but the use of armed forces in 2002 is more that a little manipulative and dishonest. The use of armed forces is always an option. As some “Old European” once said, war is just politics by other means. While the use of armed forces to achieve a policy goal may always be an option it is the rare case that some other alternative is not the more effective, economical and less damaging alternative.

Teddy Roosevelt’s motto was “speak softly and carry a big stick.” Kaiser Bill’s motto was “speak loudly and carry a big stick.” Some cynic might suggest that George W. Bush’s motto is “use the big stick first.”

You’re right. He probably didn’t have time.

I’m sorry so many people have an “anybody but Bush” attitude. I wonder how dissapointed they’ll be when they realize just how little will change with Kerry.

“But it’ll be okay, 'cuz it won’t be Bush!”

Just keep tellin’ yourself that, bub.

Spoofe, I fear you may be right. If Kerry is elected we are still stuck with the problem of disentangling ourselves from the quagmire that the invasion of Iraq has turned into, and the problem of dealing with AlQaida and similar terrorist organizations, and the problem of Israel and the Palestinians, and the problem of insuring a sound and growing economy. If Kerry is elected he will be in the position of an EMT arriving at an accident scene – the thing has already gone to Hell in a handbasket and anything he does may not help but it sure can’t make it much worse.

On other matters with a Kerry presidency, even with Congress in the control of an unholy alliance of authoritarian moralists, commercial imperialists and no-tax free lunchers, I would expect to see considerable more regard for federal fiscal responsibility, a foreign policy based on an accommodation between national interests and good foreign relations and an adherence to traditional principals of personal liberties not to say the Libertarian principle of minding your own business. I would expect to see a federal policy that does not abrogate the interests of environmental preservation in favor of the interests of making a quick buck. I expect to see an attempt to reimpose a progressive income tax structure and a rational post-mortem tax that provides tax revenue and discourage the accumulation of great wealth without destroying legitimate aspirations. I would expect to see a federal policy that does not seek to restrict compensation to the victims of negligence and willfulness. I expect to see a policy that does not interfere with the exercise by the several states of their own legitimate functions.

I would also expect to see a fair number of the members of Congress sharpening their daggers with the assistance of wind-bag radio and the likes of Mr. Murdoch and the Rev Mr Moon.

W/o getting into whetheror not Kerry came to the same conclusions or not, I’d like to point out that what you have supplied as evidence does not advance your case.

Consider that what is advocated as a response in these snippets are air strikes
and missiles strikes.
Note that air strikes and missile strikes are not the same things as a full scale invasion with a quarter million troops, the establishment of 14 permanent bases, the world’s largest US embassy, the rebuilding of a crippled nation, the expenditure of hundreds of billions of US taxpayer’s dollars, the deaths of nearly a thousand US troops and thousands of Iraqis.
I hope that the differences between these things are readily obvious.
Therefore the conclusions reached as to how to deal with the threat to the US from Iraq are, in fact, different.

Good luck. Try again if you’re willing.


And I hope John Kerry won’t pander to panic-mongerers and pull out, thus ruining what has, so far, been a totally sound and resoundingly successful campaign.

Which campaign? The war on peace?